The barbarian king Craster pays a bloody price to maintain his revolting family harem.

At the beginning of last week’s episode of Game of Thrones — “What is Dead May Never Die” we learned a new disturbing truth: the wildling king Craster, an ally of the Night’s Watch, in addition to enslaving 19 wives (many of them his own daughters) also practiced child sacrifice, offering up his male children to the white walkers.

Other recent pop culture properties also draw on this theme. Cartoon Network recently relaunched the ’80s-cult hit Thundercats. To keep the show engaging for the adults who grew up with the original 20 years ago, the writers infuse each episode with more mature mythological and historical references.

Gone are the days of a talking snarf nursemaid. And in with a future aeon where Mumm-Ra’s ancient spirits of evil demand a child sacrifice, in episode 17, “Native Son.” Here’s the teaser below, hinting at the false kingdom gained from making deals with the devil.

So are these just two random occurrences or has anyone else noticed other instances of child sacrifice showing up in recent popular culture? I wonder if there could be a connection between the return of attachment-parenting and a revival of the child-murdering demon as a villain.

David Swindle is the associate editor of PJ Media. He writes and edits articles and blog posts on politics, news, culture, religion, and entertainment. He edits the PJ Lifestyle section and the PJ columnists. Contact him at DaveSwindlePJM @ Gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @DaveSwindle.
He has worked full-time as a writer, editor, blogger, and New Media troublemaker since 2009, at PJ Media since 2011. He graduated with a degree in English (creative writing emphasis) and political science from Ball State University in 2006. Previously he's also worked as a freelance writer for The Indianapolis Star and the film critic for WTHR.com. He lives in Los Angeles with his wife and their Siberian Husky puppy Maura.

Lucifer has been given respite until judgement day at which time it will be cast into the burning lake of fire.

Lucifer hates G-d’s human creation, and part of his New Age world system is abortion. It is kind of like Moloch worship. Those who are a part of Lucifer’s world system have no problem with child sacrifice.

Your callback to the bible points to a very important truth: Child Sacrifice in particular [and human sacrifice in general] has been abhorred as an evil since the ancient Jewish times. It was a staple of many pagan religions and has been universally painted as an evil act.

The fact that a new form of it has arisen in our culture is frightening in and of itself.

1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did prove Abraham, and said unto him: ‘Abraham’; and he said: ‘Here am I.’
2 And He said: ‘Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.’

The story is often explained as a test of Abraham’s faith. This raises more questions than it answers. Faith in what, the kind of G-d who demands child sacrifice? Also what need does the almighty have to test anyone since he knows all outcomes. G-d substitutes a ram for Issac as if the whole thing is a cruel joke. The whole episode is unsettling.

Then there is the interesting observation that Abraham returns alone from the mountain. We do not hear from Issac again until he meets his arranged wife Rebecca, “for he dwelt in the South”. It seems that the incident caused a rift between father and son. Issac’s mother has died in the interim but we do not hear about Issac during that time.

One approach is to look at these issues as seperate themes within the story. There is the transition between human sacrifice which was rampant at the time, to animal sacrifice which became Jewish practice until after the destruction of the temple when it was replaced by rabbinic Judaism.

In testing Abraham it was he who became changed. Thus far he had only sacrificed himself but had not yet been willing to sacrifice those close to him. It was not until he was willing to do so that he was ready to take on the role of founder and leader of a great nation. “‘By Myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son,
יז כִּי-בָרֵךְ אֲבָרֶכְךָ, וְהַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה אֶת-זַרְעֲךָ כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְכַחוֹל, אֲשֶׁר עַל-שְׂפַת הַיָּם; וְיִרַשׁ זַרְעֲךָ, אֵת שַׁעַר אֹיְבָיו. 17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
יח וְהִתְבָּרְכוּ בְזַרְעֲךָ, כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ, עֵקֶב, אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקֹלִי. 18 and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast hearkened to My voice.’

The third theme is the relationship between father and son. Anyone who has raised a child knows how difficult it can be to “cut loose” a child who has grown and needs more independance. It often takes a crisis of some kind and as the story unfolds we see that we should not despair when that happens. There is still chance for reconcilliation over time.

OK sermon over. I think an interesting premise for a book would be what happens if Abraham just says No to G-ds request.

The central character is a female with exceptional intellegence, stamina and fighting ability. She is not afraid to use her sexuality and looks to achieve her goals. She is driven by self interest yet is also capable of loyalty, altruism, and sacrifice for a higher goal. She could have come straight from the classic Heinlein novel Friday (1982).

His books also had strong political themes in which revolution against an authoritarian government were featured (Red Planet, The Moon Is A Harsh Misteress).

Like the author of Hunger Games, Heinlein also wrote for a young audience early in his carreer.

Good comments on Heinlein. I agree with your comments about strong female characters — Podkayne of Mars. I have not (nor intend to) read Hunger Games. They seem to me another example of SF series that tend to run on and on and never seem to move the plot or characters along very much.

I have very fond memories of Heinleins juviniles. Maybe tuff to see a comparison here to Have Space Suit Will Travel or Starman Jones. *Sigh*

Compare “Hunger Games” with the Heinlein Future History story, “If This Goes On”. In the Heinlein story, the hero ends up escaping conscription, rescues the woman he falls for (though not getting her himself at the end–some 50s naiveté there), joins the resistance, and eventually is part of a successful revolt against his corrupt society. Does Katniss manage to overthrow the government of Panem? Does anyone else?

How would the authors of Gladiator-at-Law and The Space Merchants handle the Hunger Games plot? It would be bitterly comic, but the protagonist would end up not simply accepting her fate.

It’s a solid fraction of the required reading lists, for schoolkids. The Lottery is by Shirley Jackson- it’s on required reading lists. There’s a small trilogy about a third kid trying to survive in a two kid world- penalty death.
Anne Frank, if you stretch it.

I don’t think it’s AP parents thinking the worst. It’s that every AP parent I know scores crazy high on the Kaiser Permanente childhood trauma test, and they are trying to keep their kid safe. If you were raised in a sheltered, safe, family, you might not think it takes quite so much work to keep a kid safe. There’s been an on-going war against children since easily the late sixties. I could be paranoid, and blame the baby boom- they wanted to be the last mockingbird in the American nest, ever, or just say that american culture changed in ways that made society incredibly unsafe for kids.

And, don’t forget, every kid born since 1972 has already walked under a guillotine:they’ve been “chosen” to live. 1/3 don’t make it. That’s a lot of nightmares, all by itself. Our president doesn’t want his precious girls punished by babies. That’s the voice of the current establishment.